Info re Bachmann K-27 from owners

Stan, Thanks.


 I think I may have a clue. When I first got a K27 of my own, the first thing I did was take it apart so I could fully understand it from the perspective of the additions I chose to make. When I reassembled it the first time my locomotive and tender could no longer navigate 1600 turnouts. Most times the tender derailed. After a lot of head scratching I found the reason was that I had inadvertently shortened the wires to the tender and when the locomotive entered the 1600 curve it literally picked the tender wheels off the track. The problem went away when I went back and lengthened the wires. Perhaps you inadvertently did the same thing.

That is not possible. If you read the entire post, you will see that I removed all of the Bachmann wiring. I specifically stated:

"All wires between the loco and tender are totally eliminated with only the chuff input going through the draw-bar. I did not feel the need to feed the pickups in the tender to the loco. "

You can also clearly see this at the very end of my first video. There are no plugs, no wires. Just the draw-bar and the Bachmann provided footplate between the cab and tender.




There have been many reports that screw towers inside the tender break. Three of the four in my tender were broken. In addition, part of the tender shell was broke out at the rear.

When you first got the K, I seem to remember you reported a greatly damaged outer box that occurred during shipping. I would never accept a clearly damaged model. All manufacturers will try to improve things when problems occur but some things are out of their control. The back of the tender does not get a hole in like yours had without some real extreme pressure. In your case a shipment that clearly had gone through the wringer and had a broken tender inside should in my opinion been immediately returned. 



Sorry, but I did not report a damaged box. I reported the the box was dirty, scuffed and soaking wet. The outer foam pads, inner box and molded foam retainers were in perfect condition.

Look again at this picture.





Are you suggesting that, someone dropped the box, the three tender supports broke, the screw in the remaining support worked loose, the shell lifted up far enough for the cut lever to flip over into this position, the shell fell back into place, and then the remaining screw somehow worked itself back tight again? I don't buy that. I had to remove the remaining screw and pull hard to get the tender released from the floor.  Then I had to lift the entire shell almost an inch and a half to get the cut lever back outside the tender.








I mentioned the shipping damage because I know of no one else who has these performance problems. True with the loose counterweights many had binding problems, especially on rollers, but to the best of my knowledge no one else has had these binding problems or bent screw problems once the proper counterweights were installed. I can not help you with this one. In my opinion, either something got real damaged in shipment, you put it back together wrong, or something has been damaged in some other fashion. All 3 of my K-27s have the replacement counterweights (one set I did the others had been done already) and none have any binding problems. Perhaps someone else can help you with this one.


Maybe others were so excited to get the counter weight problems fixed to the point where the loco would at least RUN without totally locking up, they were willing to overlook a small bind.



However, I will concede that I could have put it back together wrong.



I might mention that I used to work for National Cash Register back in the days when they used gears to keep totals, figure tax, keep hundreds of department, cashier and shift totals and print out multi page sales reports. The last mechanical cash register NCR made was the most complex mechanical machine ever built. A single Class 5 NCR cash register had twice as many parts as the Saturn 5 rocket that took us to the moon. Our final exam was to completely disassemble it and put it back together. Later I worked on IBM Selectric typewriters IBM summery punches, and over one hundred other mechanical monstrosities. I could put most of them back together blindfolded.

But, you are right, I COULD have not known how to inset a screw into a counterweight without bending it.






Yep you are credited at finding this one. A fan that blows air into the locomotive is sure going to dampen the smoke output. 



You have that backward. As shipped the fan blows air down and OUT the bottom of the loco causing a slight partial vacuum. The only place the Kay can get air back into the loco to fill the vacuum is the smoke stack.

I reversed the fan so it sucks air IN from the bottom to provide a slight positive pressure inside the boiler. The only place for the air to exit is therefor UP through the smoke stack.




 I chose a different set of decoders for my installations and have absolutely no lugging or lack of power in or out of curves. My slow speed performance is exceptional and my Ks will pull much longer trains than you report up the long 2% and 3% grades on my railroad. I can set the locomotive at speed step one and it will tie crawl over the entire layout for hours with no change in speed or ability to pull. 12 volt versions of the same Pitmann motors are used in brass O scale and one of the brass builders has used them for year. He also has reported that not all decoders control these motors well. It is the high efficiency aspect of these motors that can confuse the back emf detection on most of the earlier decoders and many of the decoders produced today. For many years these motors have been the gold standard for achieving good performance which few have met. I will have to talk to him about his observations with the decoders you chose but based on the magazine decoder reviews performed in Europe, I suspect this one of the the real root causes of the problem you have reported.




My Kay, also ran around the ALLY at speed step 1 with a DCC decoder installed.

And, in a pulling test, it once pulled 24 cars one complete lap.

The problem with lugging down has nothing at all to do with slow speed performance or pulling power.

Nor does it have anything to do with back EMF.

I specifically reported that the loco lugged down on DC. As always, I followed the instructions provided by almost EVERY DCC manufacturer.



MAKE SURE THE LOCO RUNS SMOOTHLY AND HAS NO ISSUES ON DC PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE DECODER INSTALL.



I also thought I made it clear that the issue is not motor related. The motor slows down because as the load increases, and therefore the current increases, the internal wiring is not capable of delivering full track voltage to the motor. IE there is too much resistance and not enough current carrying capacity in the the wiring. I saw nothing that indicates the motor was weak or defective, lower voltage = lower speed. The motor did exactly what any motor would do when it's power source has to much impedance. It slows down more under load because the voltage delivered to the motor drops. A higher gear ration might help, but it would only mask the problem.

With the decoer I currently have in the Kay, back EMF compensates for the lugging in the curves. It shoulden't have to. The curves are not that tight.



I was able to measure the amount of voltage drop, and I reported it in my post.

I also was able to take the 9 feet of wire, all those connectors and circuit board traces out of the equation and repeated my measurements and observed an improvement.



Again, I am just following the directions provided with one of my decoders. 



PLAN YOUR INSTALLATION FOR THE SHORTEST WIRES. CUT ALL WIRES TO LENGTH. 

Or for wired decoders.

"EXTRA LONG WIRES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. BE SURE TO CUT AND REMOVE ALL EXCESS WIRE."



B0B

Bob....
As always, you have nailed things down tight. Your curiosity, diligence and relentless pursuit of solutions is virtually incomprenhesible to an unknowledgeable hack like myself. Thank you again for what you bring to the hobby. And thanks for saving me a bunch of money. I'll back off and control my lust: It is a really good looking model, but I don't want a model for my wall. I need a loco my grandchildren can operate with a little supervision. Maybe BAchmann will take all the input developed by you and others and in time offer a loco that will work out of the box. I don't have the knowledge or skill to even begin to do the 'fixes' you suggest. I'm in the process of throwing cold water on my lust for the Kay. Brrrr! I'm already shriveled!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif

Dwight,

I think the issue of a vested interest trying to minimize PR damage and effect major spin control on MLS under the guise of being just a "fellow hobbiest/modeler" is more important than any heated egos and offers a real risk for readers trying to make a determination as to where to spend their hard-earned dollars. If I read an advertising piece by Bachmann or any vendor I know I'm getting the "marketing" centric view and can exercise caution.

When I read comments from people like TOC and Bob I take them to heart because they clearly state they don't have any vested interests and I believe them based on many hours of haunting the forums. I do however believe that Stan does have a vested interest but he seems to be trying to hide same.

I think everyone should be able to voice "their opinion" (even at the top of their lungs), nor do I have a problem with a vendor having a voice and presence on the forums (as long as I know that the "voice" has their own agenda), I just don't think shills who spout a manufacturer's party line as part of their job are good for the hobby in general nor for MLS inparticular when the average reader has no way to tell they're reading more than just some guy's opinion or personal experience.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,
TJ

Gdancer, I really enjoy my K-27 and have no problems running it with my DCC system. The only thing I "had" to do was to shim the loose counterweights. My understanding is the new locos come with that fixed already.

I changed the headlight and classification LEDs to something more of my liking. I'm not sure who decided the colors but they went way overboard in my opinion. The headlight is too yellow and the classification lights too orange for me. But then again my LGB Mike came with fake, non-working classification lights. It was easier changing the LED than putting in an entire classification light

I'm not happy with the smoke output, so I'm working on replacing it with a better smoke unit, either the Aristo or Turbo Smoke - but I've done the same with Accucraft and LGB locos - the only steam loco that puts out good smoke from the get go is MTH, in my opinion.

I run my K-27 on 8' diameter track no problem, and even up to 45 scale mph, although I typically run it at about 25 - 30 scale mph.

The slow speed control is not that great because of the gearing but with some freight cars or AMS passenger cars in tow and the fine control DCC offers it gets much better. Also, because of the gearing I’m not sure I would run it on a layout with steep grades, unless you have a decoder with Back EMF, as it can take off going down hill. My layout is pretty flat.

I put in a Phoenix P5, while it was definitely not plug and play the installation didn’t take much time and is documented on the Bachmann site.

The next closest offering to the B’ K-27, I believe, is the Accucraft, but being brass (and sold out) it's quite a bit more expensive.

Even with everything not being perfect out of the box, for $700 (what I paid) it's a tough model to beat for the price. The accuracy is beyond what models much more expensive offer, including a suspension system replicating the prototype.

If you'd like a great looking 1:20.3 loco that runs pretty good at a good price, you might reconsider. If you want some changes made but don't want to do it yourself, several others have said that Dave (MLS ID: Curmudgeon) does good work and has several customers reporting they are very happy with their B' K-27 from him.

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/05/2008 9:17 AM

Bob- Dontcha love it when he tries to spin the facts to fit his limited scope of understanding? gdancer- as long as Stanley is even remotely involved with the company or its designer, not much chance of getting usable input through. Ask folks in his working groups with the nmra and find out how data is controlled through the "choke point".





TOC, I think you are being too hard on Stanly. I actually liked the idea of a standard socket. Stanly tried to introduce a standard that expanded on an existing proprietary socket. He assigned the purpose that each pin was to be used for, including several pins that had been unused in the proprietary socket. 



Stan has said, several times, he is not an electronics engineer. It was Bachmann's responsibility to implement the standard. 



Bachmann did not seem to understand the basic concept of DCC plug and play sockets. 



Most manufacturers seem to adhere to a simple concept. The socket exposes the hardware in the loco to a set of defined pins. IE: the pins go to tracks, motor, lights, smoke generators, pantograph lifters, or whatever. These are usually assigned generic names like F1, F2, etc. In this way, we don't need a hundred or more defined pins to cover every conceivable device that a loco might have. 



So, a loco maker can simply tell the user that "This electric has motorized pantograph's and can be controlled on F6" or "this steam engine has a smoke generator and can be controlled on F6." Or, This switcher has a operating uncoupler, it can be controlled on F3.) 





An important part of this concept is the word "exposes". It means that a wire goes from the F6 pin in the interface to the pantograph motor, coupler lifter, light bulb, LED, uncoupler solenoid or whatever. The manufacturer then lets us know what we need to operate these with statements like, "This loco uses 5 volt lighting for brighter lights at low speed on DC." Or, in the manual; "The uncoupler (F3) draws less than 100 ma and is rated for continuous operation." 



For most HO locos that have a DCC plug and play socket, there is a "lighting board", others with DCC plug and play simply have a "dummy board". 



The purpose of both is to connect the motor and lights to the track using the standard pins on the interface. A lighting board may also have electronics to provide directional, constant or special lighting effects like mars lights. 



Remove either the dummy board, or the lighting board, and you expose the rails, motor and all the lights so that you can install a decoder. 



Notice that I did not say, DCC DECODER, just decoder. HO users can and do install Marklin or Motorola decoders as well as DCC decoders. In the small scales, due to space, the electronics for the DC lighting effects are removed and discarded. In some cases the lighting board has the lights actually soldered to the lighting board. Decoder manufacturers make decoders with the lights soldered to the decoder. The DC lighting board and the decoder are both the same size and shape so the whole process is just a direct swap of boards. 



Does this same concept extend to "G"? 



Yes, some manufacturers understand this concept. Look at the LGB plug and play socket. The LGB socket consists of a circuit board with two rows of pins. All the wires from the rails, motor(s) lights, smoke generator, accessory socket, pantograph's (if so equipped) go to this board and connect to one row of pins. There is a small dummy plug. Remove it and all the wiring in the loco is exposed on the pins of the interface. The motor and lights are no longer connected to the rails, or anything else for that matter. 





LGB also included a lighting board. Just like the small scale lighting board, it regulates voltage or lights and special circuits depending on what the loco needs. Unlike the smaller scales, there is no problem with space for those circuits. So, LGB leaves the circuits in the loco. They are on the same circuit board as the socket, but, they are disconnected nonetheless. This may be a cost savings, but more importantly, it is easy to convert back to DC without having to search though the junk drawers for the right lighting board for a particular loco. 



Just like the smaller scales, the LGB pins exposed all the hardware in the loco. Now the user can plug in a decoder. Again, I did not say DCC DECODER, just Decoder. Like the smaller scales, we have a choice, EPL decoders or DCC decoders. (there is a difference) 

With the right adapter cable, you could even plug in and RCS decoder. 

OK, They don't call the RCS radio unit a decoder, but it DOES decode digital data from a radio signal, provides the same control, and meets the generic definition of "decoder". Like the EPL decoder it is NOT a DCC decoder. Just as the Airwire is not a DCC decoder even though their wireless digital decoder has a subset of the DCC standard as an output..



Just like the smaller scales, the manufacturer (LGB) has to tell us what all this hardware requires to operate. Everything you need to know is spelled out in their catalog and on line. Each loco lists the number of lights, motors ans other accessories, as well as the light and smoke voltages. Most newer LGB locos have 5 volt lights. If our decoder outputs 5 volts or can be set to 5 volts, then we are all set. If our decoder only outputs 18 volts, or we prefer to use 18 volt bulbs and the decoder outputs are selectable, the we simply pop the headlight off, unplug the original bulb and plug in the bulb of choice. Some decoders can be configured for anything from a LED, 1 volt bulb or any common value up to 24 volts. 



Now compare this concept that nearly all other manufacturers do to what Bachmann did. 



Bachmann started with a very ambitious DC lighting board. They included flashers for the firebox. current regulators for LED lighting, Optical chuff, etc on their lighting board. The tried to incorporate a set of standard pins for a decoder (generic) interface. Unfortunately, the pins are not in the right place. (electronically the right place) Instead of being between the DC lighting circuits and all the hardware, they are inputs to more circuitry they added  as an additional interface to external decoders. When you remove the dummy plug, you are not disconnecting all the DC lighting circuits like the small scales or LGB. Instead, you are removing just the bridge rectifier that provides raw DC to the DC lighting circuits. The fact that you removed the bridge is testimony to just how badly Bachmann failed to understand the basic concept. As soon as you remove the dummy plug, you expose the INPUTS to their hardware interface, ( NOT THE REQUIRED HARDWARE) 

Of course the interface will no longer work because it no longer has a power source. You now have to replace the bridge rectifier you just removed to power the interface which sits between you and the hardware you need to control.



It gets worse...

The DC lighting part of this mess is designed for a fixed set of devices. It will only drive the provided LED's or electrically identical LEDs. Want a brighter LED? You can't have it. Want a five volt or 24 volt bulb, Sorry! Don't want a rock convert light show in your firebox. sorry but you are stuck with it. Most modern decoders have realistic lighting effects. They are designed for incandescent light bulbs. You can drive an LED, but it will not look anywhere near as realistic as a bulb. A bulb will average the pulses sent by these effects and GLOW at whatever the brightness the effect requires. LED's are either on of off. They do it so fast they SORT OF fool the eye into thinking they are dim, but the effect is not  the same. Look a bulbs driven by a rotary beacon effect from a Digitrax decoder and it looks like the bulbs are actually rotating. Connect LED's instead, and it looks like one of those cheep lighters from the quick mart. Worse still, the pulsing patterns on LED's, while too fast for the human eye simply can not be video taped. Take several photos with a digital SLR using a fast shutter speed and that "Dim" LED headlight will show up at full brightness in some shots and totally off in others.

Show the picture to a friend and he'll say" what happened to the headlight, it's not working. Now, Stan and others CLAIM this mess works, but you have photographic evidence that it does NOT.



Digitrax, SoundTraxx and others, have gone so far as to say, "do not use LED's for special effects"

SoundTraxx has even added a new feature to the Tsunami that tried to make the effects work better with LED's Their firebox flicker and dyno effects now have the option of providing an entirely different pattern of pulses to the light to try to compensate for the ON/OFF nature of LEDs. I connected a Tsunami to the Kay firebox function pin. The Bachmann electronics sees the fast pattern of pulses as "ON" and turns on it's own "ROCK CONCERT LIGHT SHOW". According to Bachmann and Stan, it "WORKS" Well, yea, I have to agree, the rock concert feature works. Maybe CW can put some clay on the Kay and make a rock concert loco out of it.



OK, so I am too particular. I expect too much.

Yep, I admit it. I want a simple interface that exposes the hardware to a set of pins. I do not want a super fancy DC lighting effects board with a do everything battery, RC, Air-wire, DCS, Analog DC, anything but DCC interface.



And Yes, It pisses me of that those who don't want all that electronic car call it a DCC interface, It is everything BUT a DCC interface.



I am a DCC user and I do not like being forced to pay for expensive stuff that adds cost, I can't use, doesn't provide any benefit, has to be ripped out and thrown away.



I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.

Posted By bobgrosh on 09/05/2008 1:25 PM
TOC, I think you are being too hard on Stanly. I actually liked the idea of a standard socket. Stanly tried to introduce a standard that expanded on an existing proprietary socket. He assigned the purpose that each pin was to be used for, including several pins that had been unused in the proprietary socket. 


You have no idea, and I am by NO MEANS being "too hard" on poor old Stanly (sic)


Stan has said, several times, he is not an electronics engineer. It was Bachmann's responsibility to implement the standard. 

And, Stanly (sic) advised them......


Bachmann did not seem to understand the basic concept of DCC plug and play sockets. 

BINGO!


Most manufacturers seem to adhere to a simple concept.

The purpose ..... is to connect the motor and lights to the track using the standard pins on the interface. A lighting board may also have electronics to provide directional, constant or special lighting effects like mars lights. 



Remove either the dummy board, or the lighting board, and you expose the rails, motor and all the lights so that you can install a decoder. 



There is a small dummy plug. Remove it and all the wiring in the loco is exposed on the pins of the interface. The motor and lights are no longer connected to the rails, or anything else for that matter. 

Now compare this concept that nearly all other manufacturers do to what Bachmann did. 



Bachmann started with a very ambitious DC lighting board. They included flashers for the firebox. current regulators for LED lighting, Optical chuff, etc on their lighting board. The tried to incorporate a set of standard pins for a decoder (generic) interface. Unfortunately, the pins are not in the right place. (electronically the right place) Instead of being between the DC lighting circuits and all the hardware, they are inputs to more circuitry they added  as an additional interface to external decoders. When you remove the dummy plug, you are not disconnecting all the DC lighting circuits like the small scales or LGB. Instead, you are removing just the bridge rectifier that provides raw DC to the DC lighting circuits. The fact that you removed the bridge is testimony to just how badly Bachmann failed to understand the basic concept. As soon as you remove the dummy plug, you expose the INPUTS to their hardware interface, ( NOT THE REQUIRED HARDWARE) 

Of course the interface will no longer work because it no longer has a power source. You now have to replace the bridge rectifier you just removed to power the interface which sits between you and the hardware you need to control.



It gets worse...


Really?

The DC lighting part of this mess is designed for a fixed set of devices. It will only drive the provided LED's or electrically identical LEDs. Want a brighter LED? You can't have it. Want a five volt or 24 volt bulb, Sorry! Don't want a rock convert light show in your firebox. sorry but you are stuck with it. Most modern decoders have realistic lighting effects. They are designed for incandescent light bulbs. You can drive an LED, but it will not look anywhere near as realistic as a bulb. A bulb will average the pulses sent by these effects and GLOW at whatever the brightness the effect requires. LED's are either on of off. They do it so fast they SORT OF fool the eye into thinking they are dim, but the effect is not  the same. Look a bulbs driven by a rotary beacon effect from a Digitrax decoder and it looks like the bulbs are actually rotating. Connect LED's instead, and it looks like one of those cheep lighters from the quick mart. Worse still, the pulsing patterns on LED's, while too fast for the human eye simply can not be video taped. Take several photos with a digital SLR using a fast shutter speed and that "Dim" LED headlight will show up at full brightness in some shots and totally off in others.

Show the picture to a friend and he'll say" what happened to the headlight, it's not working. Now, Stan and others CLAIM this mess works, but you have photographic evidence that it does NOT.

****, I know.
I was gutting them before you ever got one!


OK, so I am too particular. I expect too much.

Yep, I admit it. I want a simple interface that exposes the hardware to a set of pins. I do not want a super fancy DC lighting effects board with a do everything battery, RC, Air-wire, DCS, Analog DC, anything but DCC interface.



And Yes, It pisses me of that those who don't want all that electronic car call it a DCC interface, It is everything BUT a DCC interface.



I am a DCC user and I do not like being forced to pay for expensive stuff that adds cost, I can't use, doesn't provide any benefit, has to be ripped out and thrown away.



I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.







Gee, Bob, I can't wait for you to tell us what you REALLY think!
If you only knew the extent of Stanley's involvement in all of this......and the latest falderdash......

I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.

Ok, go back and re-read the previous 3-4 pages of post...worked for me! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif

Posted By markoles on 09/05/2008 4:25 PM
Bob,
Do you ever miss the good old days of those little LGB field locos?!!
I really find it hard to believe that the old Keep It Simple, Stupid, has been so lost on this project. Does anyone know if this crap has been put in the new release of the 4-4-0?


I've been Championing the whole KISS (Keep It Simple Stanley) idea for the last few years (as the K release approached)..now I hear that the RCS PnP may not fit in the new logging loco, maybe it shoulda been (Keep It Standard Stanley)?...wait a min, I thought that was the purpose of all this "socket" mumbo-jumbo?/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif

Posted By tj-lee on 09/05/2008 10:26 AM
Dwight,
I think the issue of a vested interest trying to minimize PR damage and effect major spin control on MLS under the guise of being just a "fellow hobbiest/modeler" is more important than any heated egos and offers a real risk for readers trying to make a determination as to where to spend their hard-earned dollars. If I read an advertising piece by Bachmann or any vendor I know I'm getting the "marketing" centric view and can exercise caution.

When I read comments from people like TOC and Bob I take them to heart because they clearly state they don't have any vested interests and I believe them based on many hours of haunting the forums. I do however believe that Stan does have a vested interest but he seems to be trying to hide same.

I think everyone should be able to voice "their opinion" (even at the top of their lungs), nor do I have a problem with a vendor having a voice and presence on the forums (as long as I know that the "voice" has their own agenda), I just don't think shills who spout a manufacturer's party line as part of their job are good for the hobby in general nor for MLS inparticular when the average reader has no way to tell they're reading more than just some guy's opinion or personal experience.
Just my 2 cents.

Best,
TJ




Posted By Dwight Ennis on 09/05/2008 9:55 AM
Let's at least try and keep the discussion civil Gentlemen. Discussing the issues are fine, but let's try to keep personalities out of it please.

I fully realize the history here, and I fully realize that the battle lines were drawn long ago. I also realize that these discussions are important and necessary, and go to the core of what MLS is all about. I merely ask that you keep the discussion impersonal (if possible). This isn't the place for hostility.
Thank you.

Just a note:

While operating tonight, I ran my K for a while.
I widened on 'er, wide open at 14.4V of battery.
It became a 1-4-1 at the first #4 turnout.

Read my post about it a nice engine.
Read others postings about how it could have been a nicer engine.

IF we had correct (or, closer) gearing, IF we didn't have to deal with the Ames Super Socket, or the "With Integrated Production Electronics", or the 13 wires between engine and tender, early units with counterweight issues, red class lights, impossibility of just placing an incandescent bulb in without rewiring, very small surface mount electronics impossible for the average hobbyist to repair, 11/16" of side play at the pilot beam, the jet-blast-roar of the fan on battery or dcc, inverted chuff that needs "modification" and still won't work at low track voltages without MORE modifications that preclude the use of the smoke unit, silly things like doors and holes in the sides of smokeboxes, then, yes, worth every penny.

I've fixed all the issues on mine, and probably a dozen others, and they all run fine.

This could have ben a home run.

The pinch-hitter they brought in appears to have not been up to the task, and has been successful in one thing.

Getting the person who kept the locos running not wanting to do it anymore.

But, hey, the pinch-hitter is more than capable of finding folks to do a better job.

Just remember, if the stuff was built without any problems, we wouldn't need to fix them, and look at all the fun we'd miss out on.

What this entire thread says: since LGB no longer is manufacturing American style locos, it would be nice if someone could step up and manufacture reliable, uncomplicated equipment, at a reasonable price (e.g. under $1,000) to meet our common market.

We then could each decide on the direction of the power, i.e. DCC, battery, etc. Bob Grosh, Greg Elmiassin (sp?), etc....the guys who have the time and talent (or at least the talent!)...to modify the uncomplicated equipment could then do so. In fact, I suspect they really enjoy taking something simple and complicating it....it's the part of the hobby they most enjoy (I'm just guessing at that, based on their threads and websites.). The Kay is obviously a great looking model , but complicated in that it requires a bunch of fixes; maybe released before it had been properly vetted. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif (One can understand the need to get what has been designed and manufactured to market quickly: all that front end negative cash flow produces enormous pressures to do so. Nonetheless, in this case Bachmann is suffering serious damage to its image that will no doubt carry over to later items. Maybe a really bad marketing decision?)

Of course I love having a "DCC ready" loco in which I could simply buy a decoder and literally just plug it in. But, obviously that's a lot more complicated than I imagine due to the variety of power options used in the hobby. I certainly wouldn't mind purchasing a basic loco, buying a decoder plus sockets, etc, etc. as extras if...if...that would make a loco more acceptable to other non-DCC power people. But then I don't have enough understanding to even know what that would entail.

I really hunger for a great-looking and great operating steam loco similar to the one's I see operating within 50 miles of my summer home here in Colo: the Durango & Silverton and the Cumbres & Toltec.

I haven't given up on the K-27....yet. Several of you guys have said you're reasonably satisfied after a couple of major fixes, i.e. slims and counterweight fixes. I'm not buying until next Spring; perhaps later runs will be better. Some suppliers can make the fixes for my untalented, unknowledgeable self and.....we'll see.

My apologies for unwittingly kicking off some heated discussions.....but a discussion that no doubt will serve a good purpose. As always, I am indebted to you brother RR's. You guys in MLS are truly a great bunch....not that you always agree with each other!.....but nonetheless gracious, hospitable and extremely generous. Thanks for always being there for me (as the younger generation says).

(BTW, altho my current posts show me to be a brand-newbie, I have been a first class member for several years, just hadn't posted anything since last summer and apparently MLS reset the postings during the winter. I've been a RR'er for almost 70 years.)

It IS a nice loco.
Don't mis-understand me.

The push was for a home-run, and for simplicity.

If you followed older threads (now probably in the archives), I had a counter-proposal for screw terminals at one end of the tender, on the floor, that ANYBODY could connect virtually anything to.

With the limited space in the next announced engine (two vertical motors, 21MM of height for a speaker, and whatever version of Ames Super Socket) plus smoke unit, weights, any other electronics, and a flicker board, I would be willing to guess someone in the organization is re-thinking the screw-terminal approach and re-evaluating why anyone listened to the socket promoter in the first place.

While the K was a good candidate for "cut and throw", from what I have seen, the next big one is almost a mandatory.

I had to re-shuffle my boxes and bags of cut out locomotive electronics earlier in the week, and it's getting to be a problem storing this crXp.

But, there is a reason I keep it.

Hi Guys,

A few questions, I have a K and considering converting to RC/battery/w sound. After spending over $700.00 on the engine and now looking at an additional $600.00 to $700.00 for battery, sound and rc, I want to make sure i'm not wasting my money.

When we bought the engine we where told it had the new/replacement counterweights. So far no problems with binding or lockup. I would say it has 15hrs run time pulling 8 cars. I have not noticed any sparks at the tender pickups or any crud on the track. I'm running on brasstrack using a 20 volt MRC tech2 powerpac.

My concern's are based on the three questions Doug asked earlier in this thread

* Is the K27 geared wrong? Yes or No...
* Do all of its functions perform properly on DC or battery power right out of the box? Yes or No...
* Are there "work-arounds" required to achieve the intended/advertised/desired performance of the K27 before it hits the rails? Yes or No

To this Tony W replied yes,no,yes.

Tony can you give a better explination than yes no yes??
How does RCS control the downhill running of this engine??
Is anyone planning to make a 30 to 1 set of gears for it or does it really need a gear change??
What functions will not preform properly on battery power??
What workarounds are needed??

After reading the last few threads on this engine, looking back I would have waited to buy one.

Thanks, Chuck

Stanley claims that using a back-emf decoder solves the problem, yet he says there is no problem.
It is fast, and with all the battery r/c units I have done, one just anticipates stops on downgrades.

I haven't had any issues controlling downgrade running.

I have heard some r/c systems might, but that's not confirmed, so not quite sure.

Nice loco, and if you get the nose to go where you want it to (lock driver slide) and lengthen the wires by 1/4" or so, make the "chuff" work with your sound system, re-wire the electronics in the boiler so you can use an incandescent bulb, remove the entire Ames Super Socket (which allows you all the room you need for any install, plus removes a layer of components that might give rise to problems later), glue a piece of .080" black styrene over the Ames Super Socket opening to improve bass response and keep condensation out, plus allow you to load real coal into the bay without filling the tender, put in WHITE class lights, and it's fine.
Just don't use more than 14.4V.